Talk:Samara culture

Contemporary animal sacrifices
Quote: “ We know that the Indo-Europeans sacrificed both animals and people, like many other cultures.” Which contemporary cultures exactly did practice animal sacrifice?

Unclear
Section Indo-European Urheimat starts with mention of "three cultures." Which three? Jamesdowallen (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only unclear - who wrote such nonsense: " dates Samara culture at cal. C-14 5200–4500 BC, with possible continuation into first half of 5th millennium, ..."?? 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:819D:7292:FB3F:14F5 (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition: In the bio-genetic literature (a dozen examples) the data for both Samara and Khvalynsk cultures, overlap completely between 5660 and 4000 cal BC, with only poor explanations of the cultural differences. I cannot solve the problem.HJJHolm (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Further: "approximately 7,000 years BP" is double nonsense, because false date and ambiguous 'BP'. Correct is "8000-7000 calBC, only archaeologically dated", which means, there is no RC date. 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:911C:F6EE:80AC:268 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Some notes
Note to dating: In the very latest book of Gimbutas supporter V.A.Dergachev, 2007 (ISBN 5-98187-173-3), except one the most detailed compilation of data about horses domestication and scepters, we find dating of Samara culture in reasonable cal. C-14 5200-4500 BCE with possible continuatation into first half of 5th millennium, Khvalinskaya cca 4600-3900 BCE. As I understand, data are based on synchronisation, not radicarbon dating or dendrochronology of Samara culture sites itself! Synchronisation to the west: Samara = Mariupol = Tripolie A = Vinča - Turdas (Vinča B, C); Khvalinskaya = Sredni Stog 1 = Tripolie B1 = Pre-Cucuteni = [Gumelnita]; Maykop = Yamna = Sredni Stog II = Tripolie B2 = Cerna Voda I = Salcuta IV = Bodrogkeresztur.

Note to burial rite: according to reliable Russian sources - NO KURGANS AT ALL! Low earthen covers - as it seems that sometimes the dead have been put on a surface and covered with ground, sometimes with stones (but no cairns mentioned). Citation: Generally burial rite without kurgans is typical for the Samara culture, with dead lying raised on their back in single or multiple graves with or without grave pit, dead covered in ochra, North or Norht-Eastern orientation.

Note to metals: Citation: At the moment (year 2000), there are no metal object to be found in Samara region belonging to Samara culture. However, trasological analysis showed some bone items to be manufactured with copper tools and there is one small copper-shim from neighbouring region.

Note to periodization: There are 2 traditional stages: older and younger, where older is parallel to Mariupol culture and younger to Khvalinsk, while the latter could be called composite Samara-Mariupol stage. Third one, is suggested youngest stage, from 4500 to 4000 cal. BCE, or even younger.

Pleas, don't confuse poor readers with other explanations like: Samara culture itself and Samara cuture in a broad sence including Khvalinsk and Yamna, cos the later one is just part parallelisation to neighbouring cultures.

Note to horses: It seems that only part of the people sharing this culture accepted productive economy - northern regoins continued with hunting and fishing as the only food source. In southern part, in steppe, locally indigenous horse and cow hunting/later?/breeding was carried, while hunting still held an important role.

Citations from http://povolzie.archeologia.ru/16.htm (Encyclopaedy История Самарского Поволжья с древнейших времен до наших дней. Каменный век. by Russian Academy of Science, 2000, Samara)

Andy 9-JAN-2009
 * Thank You! Please correct all this!2A02:8108:9640:AC3:911C:F6EE:80AC:268 (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

---
There is both village of Syezzheye and a small river Syezzhaya (Syeszhaya), also being mentioned in archaeo context. mikka (t) 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My source, EIEC gives the bare date "fifth millennium BC", while the Khvalynsk culture, its reported successor, have the dates 4900-3500 BC. The fifth millennium, of course, is 4000-4999. The main archaeological site is indeed the Syezzheye cemetery, named for the village in the Neftegorsk district of the Samara Oblast of the Privolzhsky (Volga) Federal District, Russia, in the area of the Samara bend. The date is difficult.--FourthAve 14:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "The fifth millennium, of course, is 4000-4999." Wrong!  There was no year 0, so every decade, century and millennium starts with the year ending in '1', not '0'.  So the fifth millenium BCE was from 4001 - 5000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.2.4 (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, fourthave. There is a good sequence of C-14 dates placing Khvalynsk I at 5000-4500. They are published on the Internet at "the horse in mortuary symbolism" site. The main question is, is that the same as Samara? Samara isn't too well dated. Gimbutas thought it was earlier and you know who she was. There are a few real early dates on Samara. Kindest regards.Botteville 04:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Samara Bend of the River Volga and Samarra in Iraq. The missing r is the key here. --Nexus5 09:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is only one Samara when speaking of horses or Indo-European studies, and it's this one. The Samarra in Iraq has nothing to do with it. Your discussion of the horse is wonderful, but probably should be off on its own article, or merged with Domestication of the horse. There are some obsessives who insist domestication dates from 2000 BC, which is silly as this is the date for the earliest horse-drawn chariots. --FourthAve 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

FourthAve or anybody with access to the literature, could you help me with some references on Samara culture? I failed to obtain ANY information on standard sites as well as encyclopedias, both online and printed sources! I even browsed Russian archaeological internet sites: while you find a lot about Khvalynsk culture and Yamna cultures, not a world about самарска культура! I have Russian textbook of Archaeology printed in 2005 and again nothing.

Basically, whole article is based only on two referenced books, both obviously pro-kurgan-theory. Therefore obvious question is: what is the role of this culture viewed from common, let say historical approach?

Especially dating of Samara culture seems to be intriguing, what exactly is the source of those data? I mean what is the original source, not pointing again to Gibutas/Mallory (e.g. what are their references /unfortunately, both books are unreachable in Eastern Europe/)! And then - why you call it ENEOLITHIC! All I can see is group with some agriculture, pottery and a lot of fishing and hunting. Where are the metal objects, where are the rich burials or signs of long-distance exchange? Or is THIS really the oldest Eneolithic culture of Europe?!! For now I see article with invaluable information, set into very confusing and spurious background.

With regards and many thanx for future answers, Andy 21:50, 6.6.2006 (GMT)

Eneolithic is a forbidden word in European archaology, save for the Greeks. It can be used in the European Cacausus, however. The same applies to Chalcolithic (a term of Oriental archaeology). Chalcolithic means 'copper-stone', and in a cultural sense, the age where copper was a prestige item, but stone was still the usual tool); "chalcolithic" is allowed in European archaeology, but rarely used. I certainly did not introduce "Eneolithic" to the article. --MarkTwainOnIce 05:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Holocene Template
Please remove that mistaken template, for it has nothing to do with history or archaeology, rather than with climatology. Moreover, it is cruelly outdated. HJJHolm (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Outdatedness aside, on what basis are you claiming that climatology has "nothing to do" with history or archaeology? My understanding is that some of the major turning points in the history of human civilization, as revealed by archaeology, have been clearly associated with climate changes. 186.176.8.94 (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This has to be proven. Tne template alone and as such has nothing to do with the special topic. Simply google my peer-reviewed publications.HJJHolm (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Links
Please provide a link the first time a word is introduced in the text. I understand that it can be difficult to track when editing is continuous, but it's a real disservice to the reader to do otherwise. Thanks. KC 00:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

Unclear
I don't understand what this means:
 * "Eneolithic" has a similar equivocal meaning. It might be considered a western derivative of Scythians.

Please revise. Thanks. KC 00:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

Justification for disambiguation between "Samarra" and "Samara" culture entries.
Both of these entries contain "not to be confused with" statements referring to the other. However, apart from a geographical distance well within the range of horses, it's not made clear why these two cultures are considered to be different. The dates given for their existence appear to overlap as well. 186.176.8.94 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

"flourished around the turn of the 5th millennium BCE"
What the hell does this mean? Circa 5000 BCE or circa 4000 BCE?

"Middle of the 5th millennium" is bad enough -- Why not just say "circa 4500 BCE"? But "TURN of the 5th millennium BCE"? Ridiculous! I'm native English speaker and would be guessing ... and hoping that the Wiki editor didn'\t get it wrong.

Thanks for your prompt attention in fixing this horrid terminology.Jamesdowallen (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Genetics mistake
There were - obviously without noticing it - two entries for the same find, which were based on three sources. This would have been easy to recognize if the ID had been given in full and cost me a lot of time.HJJHolm (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)